Lethal Heating: 07/16/18

16/07/2018

Rising Ocean Waters From Global Warming Could Cost Trillions Of Dollars

The Guardian - John Abraham

We’ll need to mitigate and adapt to global warming to avoid massive costs from sea level rise

Waterfront condo buildings are seen June 3, 2014 in Miami, Florida. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Ocean waters are rising because of global warming. They are rising for two reasons. First, and perhaps most obvious, ice is melting. There is a tremendous amount of ice locked away in Greenland, Antarctica, and in glaciers. As the world warms, that ice melts and the liquid water flows to the oceans.
The other reason why water is rising is that warmer water is less dense – it expands. This expansion causes the surface of the water to rise.

Earth’s climate history shows there have been times when ice sheets rapidly changed and created multiple meters of sea level rise in a century. As Earth’s ice sheets continue to change, a key question facing scientists now is: Could human-caused climate change be pushing us toward one of those times? Infographic

Rising oceans are a big deal. About 150 million people live within 1 meter (3 feet) of sea level. About 600 million live within 10 meters (33 feet) of sea level. As waters rise, these people will have to go somewhere. It is inevitable that climate refugees will have to move their homes and workplaces because of rising waters.
In some places, humans will be able to build sea walls to block off the water’s rise. But, in many places, that won’t be possible. For instance, Miami, Florida has a porous base rock that allows sea water to permeate through the soils. You cannot wall that off. In other places, any sea walls would be prohibitively expensive.
It isn’t just the inevitable march of sea level that is an issue. Rising waters make storm surges worse. A great example is Superstorm Sandy, which hit the US East Coast in 2012. It cost approximately $65 bn of damage. The cost was higher because of sea level rise caused by global warming.

Climate scientists do their best to project how much and how fast oceans will rise in the future. These projections help city planners prepare future infrastructure. My estimation is that oceans will be approximately 1 meter higher in the year 2100; that is what our infrastructure should be prepared for. What I don’t know is how much this will cost us as a society.
A very recent paper was published that looked into this issue. The authors analyzed the cost of sea level if we limit the Earth to 1.5°C or 2°C warming. They also considered the future cost using “business as usual” scenarios.
What the authors found was fascinating. If humans take action to limit warming to 1.5°C, they estimate sea level will rise 52 cm by the year 2100. If humans hold global warming to 2°C, sea levels will rise by perhaps 63 cm by 2100.
The difference (11 cm) could cost $1.4 tn per year if no other societal adaptation is made. This is a staggering number and in itself, should motivate us to take action.
But the authors went further, they considered an even higher future temperature scenario (one that is essentially business as usual). With that future, global annual flood costs would increase to a whopping $14 tn per year.
In the study, the authors considered which countries and regions would suffer most. It turns out upper middle income countries will be worse off, particularly China. Higher-income countries have a slightly better prognosis because of their present flood protection standards. But make no mistake about it, we will all suffer and the suffering will be very costly.
There are four important takeaways from this study. First, while the economic costs are large, there is some range of projections. The actual costs may be lower or higher than the median predicted in the study. This is largely due to the fact that we don’t know how fast Greenland and Antarctica will melt. If they melt faster than projected, things will be worse than what I’ve described here.
Second, adaptation will help. By adaptation I mean making our societies less susceptible to sea level rise. For example, building sea walls when possible, building new infrastructure away from coasts, putting in natural breaks to limit storm surge during large storms, and making infrastructure more water-resistant.
Third, what we do now matters. If we can get off the high-emissions business as usual scenarios – if we can increase investment in clean and renewable energy – we can reduce the future costs.
Finally, while scientists often use 2100 as a benchmark year, it isn’t like oceans will stop rising then. In fact, we are committing ourselves to hundreds of years of rising oceans. The ocean has a lot of climate inertia. Once it starts rising, you cannot stop it. So, by focusing only on the year 2100, we are deluding ourselves into underestimating the long term costs.
This research shows it’s important to connect climate science with economic science. Too often, social scientists and economists with very little climate science understanding have tried to tell us that climate change is not a problem. Whenever you hear an economist or a social scientist give you a rosy future prediction, take it with a grain of salt. Their opinion is worthless without being backed by physical understanding. And the loudest economists and social scientists often have very little of this physical understanding.

Links

Approving The Climate Security Agenda

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Thomas Gaulkin

The United Nations Security Council has officially discussed climate change just three times since 2007. (Photo illustration via bwats2 and AIRS)

The UN Security Council held a meeting this week under the heading, “Understanding and Addressing Climate‑related Security Risks.”
It was just the third time the body has officially debated climate change as a security concern, but with Trump making headlines overseas, few noticed. (Climate change itself saw practically no major network coverage in the United States this month, despite record-breaking heat waves across the country.)
The council’s previous debates on the topic, in 2007 and 2011, were marked by disagreement over whether the Security Council is an appropriate forum for climate questions at all.
There are other bodies at the UN that cover the environment and development, goes one argument against it.
Another suggests that climate might be used as a pretext for politically motivated interventions, or securitization of climate issues might unfairly target poor nations that still depend on a high-emissions economy.
Veto-wielding states like China and Russia have routinely opposed anything that would expand the council’s peace-keeping powers.
Despite those objections, over the past seven years Security Council members have voted for multiple resolutions that acknowledge the links between climate-related displacement and conflict, including in regions like Somalia and around Lake Chad (which is now less than 10 percent of its 1960s size).
Since the issue first came on the council’s agenda 11 years ago, many other states have also begun to experience the direct and indirect effects of climate change.
The devastation in Syria, and its impact on migration (and politics) across Europe and the globe, were partly precipitated by drought. The Arab Spring has been linked to a 2010 drought that destroyed Russia’s wheat harvest and led to sky-rocketing food prices across North Africa.
The July 11 meeting may be a harbinger of more sustained interest in treating climate as an international security concern. Baron Waqa, the president of Nauru and chair of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, called for a new UN special representative on climate and security.
Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström, who presided over the debate, announced the creation of a climate security “knowledge hub” in Stockholm, with a focus on evidence-based analysis.
“It is time for the Security Council to catch up with the changing reality on the ground,” Wallstrom said.
But other states remain unmoved. The Russian deputy UN ambassador described the inclusion of climate on the council’s agenda as “an illusion.”
While supporting the council’s attention to natural disasters, the United States barely acknowledged the main agenda topic, referring to climate change only once, and at arm’s length.
“We have heard from our friends in the Pacific that they consider climate change to be an existential threat to their populations, and we understand the priority they place on the UN system and the international community supporting their unique needs,” said the US deputy representative, Jonathan Cohen.
The bar is still set low.
Wallström acknowledged at a press conference before the meeting that it was “not realistic” to expect any immediate concrete outcomes, and that “it’s a success to be able to place it on the agenda.” With more resource- and climate-related conflict likely on the horizon, it’s difficult to know whether the Security Council taking on climate change is a hopeful sign, or just another indication that the world is marching steadily toward a future in which climate change poses a dangerous and unavoidable security threat.
“Very soon we will see more climate refugees, and it will affect all of us,” Wallström said. “So their destiny is also our destiny.”

Links

An 11-Million-Ton Iceberg Is Threatening A Tiny Village In Greenland

Washington Post - Cleve R. Wootson Jr.

Innaarsuit, on the west coast of Greenland, this week. The iceberg rises about 300 feet above the water level. Credit Scanpix Denmark/Reuters

An 11-million-ton iceberg is parked precariously close to the tiny village of Innaarsuit — a glacial faceoff that pits 169 residents of Greenland against the biggest iceberg many have ever seen.
Their fate could be entirely dependent on the weather forecast.
If a strong enough wind blows at the right time, the berg could be dislodged from the spot where it has grounded, and float harmlessly into Baffin Bay. Crisis over.
But if Mother Nature brings enough rain, the relatively warm precipitation could further destabilize the iceberg, potentially sending a chunk of it into the ocean and creating a tsunami that could wash away part of the town.
“We are very concerned and are afraid,” Karl Petersen, chair for the local council in Innaarsuit, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
So far, 33 people have been moved to safer places inland. Others have been encouraged to move their boats away from the iceberg.

A huge iceberg grounded just outside the village of Innaarsuit, Greenland, and is threatening the coastal homes of the town's 169 residents. (Reuters)

Innaarsuit is about 600 miles north of Nuuk, the country's capital. The village's residents are mostly hunters and fishermen in an isolated area most easily reached by boat or helicopter.
The iceberg is 650 feet wide — nearly the length of two football fields — and rises 300 feet above sea level, according to the New York Times. In terrifying pictures, it literally casts a shadow on a hilly outcropping of Innaarsuit, dwarfing boats, homes and businesses.
Residents don't need lengthy memories to know the effect even a small tsunami could have on the country that doubles as the world's biggest island.
Last June, according to Quartz, a landslide caused by a 4.1-magnitude earthquake that struck 17 miles north of the village of Nuugaatsiaq partly triggered a tsunami that washed away 11 homes and killed four people.
Video posted online showed villagers sprinting away from approaching waves washing over seaside homes.
Tsunamis caused by landslides in bays can rise to incredible heights, travel at devastating speeds, and cause massive destruction, according to Quartz.
A similar giant wave was thought to have destroyed the city of Geneva in 563 AD, the Economist wrote.
Of course, even if there isn't some giant city-destroying Hollywood-style tsunami, there are other dangers from rising water. Nearby rivers could overflow their banks, for example, threatening homes and other buildings that don't face the sea. And Innaarsuit's power plant is also on the coast, meaning flooding in a very specific place could send Innaarsuit into the Dark Ages.
A Danish Royal Navy ship is standing by, according to the CBC, in case the situation sours.
“We can feel the concern among the residents,” Susanna Eliasson, a member of the village council, told CBC. “We are used to big icebergs, but we haven’t seen such a big one before.”
For now, the residents of Innaarsuit are watching the weather. The area will see relatively sedate winds for the next week. And on Sunday, July 22, it's supposed to rain.

Links

Climate Change To Worsen Urban Air Quality, Lifting Death Toll

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Days of severe pollution in Australia's biggest cities will worsen in coming decades as a warming climate triggers more intense temperature inversion events, exacerbating health issues, according to new research.
With more than 3000 premature deaths a year in Australia already linked to urban air pollution, worsening low-level air quality could increase the toll, said Jason Evans, a professor at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes and a co-author of the report published recently in the Climate Dynamics journal.

Fog and smog across the Sydney Basin on the coldest morning of the year so far. Photo: Dean Sewell

Inversion events reverse normal conditions, with cool air near the surface trapped beneath warmer air. The resulting lack of mixing allows pollutants, dust and pollen to build up, potentially harming health.
The new study examined data for the 1990-2009 period from nine weather sites. They ranged from Brisbane along the eastern seaboard to Adelaide, and took in inland cities such as Canberra.
It then applied regional climate models based on a business-as-usual carbon emissions trajectory to project results for 2020-39 and 2060-2079.
Significant changes in the intensity of inversions - based on the increasing differential between the temperature at the top of the warm layer compared with the air near the land - were detected in the latter period at all of the nine locations.
"Even though the overall number of inversions didn't change, we saw a substantial reduction in weak inversions and a marked increase in stronger inversion layers," Professor Evans said.
For Sydney, the increasing strength of daytime inversions was about 46 per cent for the 2060-79 period, compared with 1990-2009.
For Melbourne, the increase was as about 53 per cent, Brisbane 64 per cent, Adelaide 69 percent and Canberra about 80 per cent, according to the paper.
"With more than 80 per cent of Australia's population living [in the region studied] and large increases in population projected, the impact of more intense air pollution events in the future could be substantial," the paper said.
The models indicated only small changes in the duration of inversions, with those in the south becoming longer and those in the north shorter.

Inversion conditions
Since inversions typically develop during periods of calm winds, clear skies and long nights, the worst events will likely occur during the winter months.
Inversion conditions may occur on Monday in Sydney when overnight temperatures were tipped to drop to as low as 4 degrees at Observatory Hill, potentially the lowest July reading in 11 years.
Winds are expected to be light, with fog also settling in over places such as Richmond, on the city's north-west.
Paramatta North and Richmond were two sites to report poor air quality on Sunday morning, as did Armidale and Gunnedah, according to the Office of Environment and Heritage.
As inversion events usually take place during daylight hours, health effects will be amplified because "that's when people are out and about and most exposed", Professor Evans told Fairfax Media.

Days of poor air quality are projected to worsen with climate change. Photo: Anthony Johnson

One role climate change could play is that with warming conditions, cities in Australia - and elsewhere - are expected to cop more rainfall but during fewer events. That would leave longer periods of relatively clear skies, conducive to inversion events, he said.
Climate models also project a decline of wind strength over land, Professor Evans said.
While the paper did not examine sources of pollution, one of the biggest for cities such as Sydney and Melbourne can be smoke from hazard-reduction burning.
Fire researchers say the window for conducting such burn-offs has been narrowing, particularly in the spring. That makes it more likely authorities will step up prescribed burning during periods of light winds and dry conditions - precisely the conditions favouring inversion events.

Links